I do wish that "oppositional sexism" was a more commonly known term. It was coined as part of transmisogyny theory, and is defined as the belief that men and women, are distinct, non-overlapping categories that do not share any traits. If gender was a venn diagram, people who believe in oppositional sexism think that "men" and "women" are separate circles that never touch.
The reason I think that it's a useful term is that it helps a lot with articulating exactly why a lot of transphobic people will call a cis man a girl for wearing nail polish, then turn around and call a trans woman a man. Both of those are enforcement of man and woman as non-overlapping social categories. It's also a huge part of homophobia, with many homophobes considering gay people to no longer really belong to their gender because they aren't performing it to their satisfaction.
It's a large part of the reason behind arguments that men and women can't understand each other or be friends, and/or that either men or women are monoliths. If men and women have nothing in common at all, it would be difficult for them to understand each other, and if all men are alike or all women are alike, then it makes sense to treat them all the same. Enforcing this rift is particularly miserable for women and men in close relationships with each other, but is often continued on the basis that "If I'm not a real man/woman, they won't love me anymore."
One common "progressive" form of oppositional sexism is an idea often put as the "divine feminine", that women are special in a way that men will never understand. It's meant to uplift women, but does so in ways that reinforce the idea that men and women are fundamentally different in ways that can never be reconciled or transcended. There's a reason this rhetoric is hugely popular among both tradwifes and radical feminists. It argues that there is something about women that men will never have or know, which is appealing when you are trying to define womanhood in a way that means no man is or ever has been a part of it.
You'll notice that nonbinary people are sharply excluded from the definition. This doesn't mean it doesn't apply to them, it means that oppositional sexism doesn't believe nonbinary people of any kind exist. It's especially rough on multigender people who are both men and women, because the whole idea of it is that men and women are two circles that don't overlap. The idea of them overlapping in one person is fundamentally rejected.
I think it's a very useful term for talking about a lot of the problems that a lot of queer people face when it comes to trying to carve out a place for ourselves in a society that views any deviation from rigid, binary categories as a failure to perform them correctly.
If I can add, oppositional sexism is a cornerstone of evangelicalism and honestly a whole bunch of other forms of Christianity. The idea women and men exist for different tasks is deeply religious but specifically in the US and I assume for the majority of tradwives evangelical/conservative christian dogma. So even when ppl who proport to be somewhere feminist start up divine feminine shit they're regurgitating the same talking points the religious right started doing.
Yep. I believe they refer to it as "Complimentarianism".
slapping modeling clay around blindly without thought or purpose, i look down and find a perfectly sculpted replica of myself seated at a table with a lump of modeling clay before me, similarly shaped into a still smaller instance of the same scene. and i am afraid to look up
In the 1960s, NASA had a bunch of dummies working to bring humans to space. Well, it was just two dummies, really. Each ‘Power Driven Articulated Dummy’ was a 230-pound robot that NASA engineers designed to test space suits. One of the dummies now resides at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, and the other was auctioned off.
Popular Science wrote about the dummies back in 1967. Controlled by an operator and driven by a circulatory system of oil inside tubes, each android could mimic 35 human movements, from arm and hand flexing to twisting at the waist. [x]
you’ve got to be jeff the kidding me
Do you pay for Spotify Premium?
yes, it’s the only way to make spotify useable
no, I will never submit to their terror campaign of ads
I use someone else’s Spotify Premium account
no, but I pay for another music streaming service
something else
feeling greatly outnumbered in my principled (read: spiteful) stand against paid subscriptions
bat opens up their little bat wallet to find they are all out of moths. A worthless $100 bill flies out for emphasis





sukinapan
cuprumbao
